Friday, 18 September 2015


01. Introduction

We hope, dear reader that by now you have realised that you have had the privilege of sharing something with Mr Amaral: you have been treated all these years in the EXACT same way Mr Gonçalo Amaral was from the moment the PJ officers he was responsible for set foot in Praia da Luz until the moment he was “relieved” of all his duties pertaining to the Maddie case, which happened early October 2007.

Yes, please read it again.

Read it as many times as you need to fully comprehend that we all were submitted to what we call the “Jenny Murat’s Stall Effect” (JMSE).

And in “all” we include you, us, Mr Amaral and the general public, from those interested in the case to those only aware of it.

This JMSE effect, which we will define later on in the post, is in our opinion simply the most pernicious single thing that has afflicted the Maddie Affair.

Yes, the MOST.

Not a very relevant, nor a very important but the MOST damaging thing to the truth about what happened to Maddie. Even more than any and all high-level political interference that this case has had.

02. The Jenny Murat Stall Effect or JMSE

What is the Jenny Murat Stall Effect or JMSE?

We all know that Jenny set up a small stall in Praia da Luz to help find Madeleine. Before the verb “to find” associated with the word “Madeleine” became a world known brand.

Before the Fraudulent Fund and the website were set up we all knew of this elderly woman, Jenny Murat, who set up a stall to help all efforts to find the missing girl. We then were very far away from knowing she was the mother of someone who would become the 1st arguido of the case, Robert Murat.

Then the Murats were very busy helping, the son with translating, the mother with her stall.

But we now know the Murats have been economical with the truth as to what we think regards their involvement in the case.

So what did Jenny Murat intend to achieve when she set up her stall?

Obviously only she can answer that but we can make an educated guess that it was to distract and to create a character, a persona, who we shall call as Jenny “JMSE” Murat.

Jenny “JMSE” Murat was a character created to show the world an ultra-caring Brit ex-Pat whose heart overflowed for the missing girl.

Jenny “JMSE” Murat, a character with the intent to obfuscate completely Jenny Murat, a person who we believe knew there was no missing girl at all.

Jenny “JMSE” Murat v Jenny Murat, an intentional dichotomy.

To understand we have on one hand Jenny Murat who we believe, together with her son, was actively participating in hiding from authorities the fact the little girl was dead and on the other there’s Jenny “JMSE” Murat, the altruistic senior who wants nothing but the safe return of that little blonde girl who her parents were saying went missing just down the road from her house.

Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde incarnated but without the split personality. That is the “Jenny Murat Stall Effect” or JMSE.

To produce a JMSE effect is to pretend to be an absolute “goody-goody” knowing full well that not only is it a mask but fundamentally is also a distraction.

There are 2 things absolutely necessary to create this effect: to put on the mask of goodness and have something to hide.

To put on a cloak of sainthood to distract from truth.

To first become a saint and when that sainthood is achieved then the saint can lie all it wants to the congregation.

From then on, anything the saint utters from his/her mouth cannot be questioned. It’s a saint speaking so the words are not only the truth but the whole magnificent truth and nothing but the truth.

Anyone thinking otherwise will keep silent for fear of ridicule and “rightful” indignation and outrage from the offended saint. And anyone saying such sacrilege will be looked down upon with disdain from all.

A saint is a saint and a saint must be respected.

And no one dares go against a saint.

And there are many of them around as we hope to show.

03. Mr Amaral and JMSE

Was Jenny Murat the first to use the JMSE in Luz at the time of Maddie’s disappearance when she set up her stall?

No. The fact that she lends her name to the effect doesn’t mean that she was the first one to use it in this situation.

The first ones to use JMSE, and they did it immediately and extensively, was the Ocean Club.

We don’t know how fast nor who (although time has pointed its fingers to some names) of the circle of trust spread the word on the night of the 3rd, so we don’t know if or how many of the staff of the resort, both of Ocean Club and Mark Warner, were “in on it” as time progressed. What we know is that the word spread and it spread fast.

Those doubting that the word could ever have been spread quickly to instruct staff on what to say when questioned by authorities are contradicting the alleged way the news about Maddie’s disappearance spread in those first hours throughout the resort and the village that night.

Supposedly, it spread so quickly that we are led to believe there was a search involving almost every living soul in Luz. Allegedly many workers, guests and local residents combed the streets and surroundings of Luz. All except Kate, the Paynes, Jez Wilkins, the Carpenters and the Murats just to name a few.

By the way we have reason to believe that this collective search is just another hoax as many others put out but we will deal with it in later posts.

A way to see how quickly a word spreads is to stand waist deep in the water of a crowded beach and shout desperately “SHARK!  SHARK!! There’s a SHARK in the water!!!”. Then one has just to watch how fast this information spreads. It’s quite a stupid exercise and probably will bring one very unpleasant consequence both legal and physical so please refrain from doing it, simply picture it in your mind.

The word spread quickly around the resort but of course there were priorities for who to inform and instruct first and like anything that is spread, some nooks and crannies get missed.

In this case we are reminded of 2 people, the waitress at the Millenium who we think wasn't supposed to say she saw the family having breakfast there and the laundryman who was supposed to say nothing about seeing a guest in the wrong place at the wrong time.

As we now know the laundryman didn't say anything but as he had not been got to in time they assumed he had and this was what forced Carpenter to overplay his hand. 

We don’t know exactly where the Ocean Club did start using the JMSE. But we know they were the first. The “Tapas Quartet” singing from the same hymn sheet that day shows that Ocean Club had then clearly opted to create a JMSE. We would even say, THE crucial JMSE.

In terms of files this quartet was the first to show that the Ocean Club clearly wanted to help cover-up what happened.

If those 4 people had then said on the 4th when they were questioned by the PJ “No, that group of guests didn’t dine here during the week. They were only here last night”, this whole story would have stopped there and there. If that had happened the whole abduction hoax had no legs to stand on.

Instead, these 4 statements, and the ones that followed from other OC staff said “yes, they were here… yes, they reserved the table… yes, they checked the children… yes, they were a happy group and they did drink a bit…” but most importantly these statements also said “yes, and we want to help the investigation, so please, please tell us how we can help you find the truth.”

They showed a willingness to the PJ to find the truth while lying to them about what had really happened.

Offering to help get to the truth but firmly blocking it with the saintly candidness of being “evident” bystanders. Something that we’ll see repeated very often as we will show.

And the moment that first Ocean Club employee lied to the authorities the snowball that we know today began to roll.

The biggest problem the PJ faced was not the T9 and their lies. The Ts could have been 10, 30 or even 60, but if the Ocean Club hadn’t backed up their story, it would have been easy to see through all.

The biggest problem PJ faced was the “innocence” of the resort and how the Ocean Club exploited it.

PJ faced people who they couldn’t possibly suspect of anything and who had come forward without hesitation to badmouth the McCanns, to say that there was negligence.

The resort confirmed all that the T9 had said about the relationship between them and the Ocean Club. That they dined at Tapas, that the group regularly checked on the children they had left alone in the apartments.

Aren’t those exactly the 2 premises needed for the abduction to happen? Yes, they are and no it’s not a coincidence the nice resort confirms them to the authorities.

The Ocean Club’s “innocence” was assumed by all right from the start and has been taken for certain and gone unquestioned by all.

By all, except us in this blog.

The PJ, Mr Amaral and all of us have faced this lie and we all reacted to it in the exact same way: it didn't cross our minds to suspect. If there was absolutely no apparent reason to suspect the resort so why even consider the possibility?

What on earth could make the resort come together, close ranks and lie? Only if it was in their best interest to do so and looking at the situation nothing looked like a red flag.

Not even the swinging. We have reason to believe that PJ very quickly came to know about swinging. Barra da Costa and the word search on Murat’s and Malinka’s computers tell us that.

What the PJ failed to realise is up to what extent the British were willing to go to protect their reputations about it.

We're certain that for the PJ the swinging was something done privately and none of anyone’s business but their own and as it had no connection with the girl’s disappearance there was no need not to leave it alone. Swinging is adult fun, has nothing to do with children and their investigation was about the disappearance of a child.

Abduction, paedophilia or family were the possible scenarios, no reason at all to bring the swinging going on in the resort into the picture.

In our opinion PJ knew about the swinging and simply ignored it as there was no apparent connection between that and Maddie's death. Indeed there wasn't, the connection of swinging with Maddie is only post-mortem.

But the opinion of the Brits was completely different from that of the PJ. They could and would not afford for it to be known. It was something no risks at all were to be taken. That’s why it was decided to fake an abduction BEFORE authorities arrived. Absolutely no chances being taken.

The moment they started to lie, which was when the GNR officers arrived at the apartment, there was no turning back no matter how much blundering followed as we have witnessed.

No one, absolutely no one that night could have predicted the consequences and proportions of things to come. No one that night could have realised the proportions that lie would take.

We fully understand they weren’t exempting the T9 in any way from the responsibility of being involved in Maddie’s death. All the deciders tried to do was to assure the Ocean Club wouldn’t be involved in something that it indeed wasn’t involved with in the first place.

One thing is certain, when they tried to do “just this” they knew very clearly that they were committing an illegality when they decided to conceal the body. That was the moment they jumped on the “illegal” ship together with whoever had been responsible for the girl's death. From that moment on they became as accountable to the law as them.

All would have been solved if the Brits knew something about the Portuguese and that they would be discreet about the swinging. All they had to do was just tell the truth openly and frankly and then ask for the maximum discretion possible about the swinging.

PJ wouldn’t be committing any illegality in excluding this activity from the investigation (which in fact they did without being asked) as it would be simply not relying on something that needn’t be there.

If things had been done like that, we're certain that only a small and not even noticed piece of news would come out about how a little girl had died in the midst of an argument which happened between a friend of the family and her mother for whatever reason it happened.

Who would know Madeleine McCann today? No one.

And the little girl would have justice as all involved would have been appropriately and correctly prosecuted by the law.

But no, as we said, the Brits took no chances. And once the authorities arrived and the lie started it had to be maintained. What else could they say after that? That enough was enough, please let’s start this all over again as it didn’t happen like this at all and we’re just pulling your leg? Please go back to your station and wait for our call and pretend we never called you tonight and we'll call you again?

That’s why we smile when people say swinging doesn’t merit such a cover-up. Of course it does but that’s beside the point. The point is how, when and why those present decided to lie. What whoever had to decide thought sufficiently important to deserve to be lied about, at that precise moment and not afterwards.

What those there thought to be very important or not is completely different from it to be important.

All of us in our lives have many times realised in hindsight we have given importance to things that weren't important at all. But when we thought them important, that perceived importance we had of the thing conditioned all our actions.

We repeat, it's not about what we think we would think important but about what who was there thought it was.

It was about the swinging but it could have been over something ridiculous such as a stolen biscuit or a glass of spilt milk to exaggerate.

If whoever had to decide thought that the spilling a glass of milk for some strange and unfathomable reason was sufficiently important to lie about to authorities then we would be exactly where we are right now because of a glass of spilt milk.

Of course there’s something that may be taken into account when making a comparison with a glass of spilt milk and what happened in Luz and that was the willingness of others to follow-up the lie with the lies of their own to confirm the initial lie.

For that a glass of spilt milk won't do because it may be perceived very important by a few but certainly won't by many.

The lie in Luz had the commitment of many.

For that to happen those involved in lying must have been stakeholders in the lie. The loss of a life, even if accidental, is something much too serious for one to lie just out of friendship, much less to help a stranger. Only stakeholders, only those who feel they have something to lose lie in such circumstances.

The moment the GNR was called the lie stopped being about a motive and started to be about having lied. Once one lies one just keeps on lying to protect the lie before. And it never stops until truth, however simple and unimportant, is unveiled.

That’s why we say that if we are where we are in this case almost 8 years and a half after we owe that to the Ocean Club and Mark Warner. If they hadn’t set up and maintained all their “nice little stalls” - statements made with the apparent purpose to help but with the opposite intent - which blocked PJ from the truth all this wouldn’t have been possible.

Their “nice little stalls” or statements were totally credible. They were even saying that the group was a bunch of irresponsible and negligent party-seekers. They were clearly pointing a negligent finger at the T9. It was “evident” this finger-pointing must have been truthful as no one supposedly badmouths one is trying to help, right?

But the “nice little stalls” were not to help the T9, they were to help those setting up the “nice little stalls”.

To the general public it was soon too evident that the scenario PJ was facing to solve was one in which they had to unravel inconsistencies of the details of an obviously discrepant story told by the T9. A story of negligence v no negligence in which the latter was fully supported by the bullying of the British government, the British press and the British elite.

See how to the general public the Ocean Club seems to be no part of the story?

What wasn’t as evident, or even perceptible, was that this story was set against the background of deceit laid out by the resort disguised as truth and assumed as such.

Very few ever knew that it was in this scenario with this background that Mr. Amaral was to find the truth as to what happened. And those who did, were the ones who were setting the lie up.

Is Mr Amaral at fault for not noticing? No and anyone saying otherwise is simply being ridiculous.

To fully understand this case one has first to understand the UK and its complex, not to say hypocritical relationship with anything sexual. A very serious case of public virtues and private vices that has completely undermined British society.

Maddie was never about Maddie but about Britain. Mr Amaral and the PJ could never win with such a monster. Hats off to him for standing up to it that must be said and acknowledged.

04. The Internet and JMSE

In our last post “Missing People” we showed that there were on average, listed daily on the booking sheets, 361 people in the resort. As we know the sheets were tampered with so we are unable to know what the exact number of guests was.

We suspect that those who appear on the lists had no choice but to appear while others had their names removed due to the position they held in the hierarchy of the food chain .

This means that we suspect that there were more than the average 361 guests listed present in the resort. That’s almost 400 people spending thousands of pounds to stay in a resort which basically offered 2 things, beach and pool, and in the time period in question provided none.

Apparently we are led to believe that 361 people stayed in their rooms or spend their days down in the bars of the resort or those like Chaplins, Kelly’s and Paraíso. Because, however quaint it may be, Luz has absolutely nothing to see. And without beach or pool, nothing to do.

Of Paraíso, the only beachfront esplanade, we have the CCTV images of Thursday afternoon and although it has clients it isn’t packed with a significant number of the 350+ guests who, as far as we know were around town with nothing to do.

There’s Sagres to visit and then there’s Lagos. But if one wants to visit Lagos why not stay in Lagos? Much more to do there and the difference in prices in the low season do not justify the renting of a car and the time wasted to go to and fro.

There’s so much beach sand one can play with, there’s so much tennis one can play too. At the end of the day these activities are done with. What to do with the rest of the week? Stay in the room and watch Sky or GMTV?

Pay thousands of pounds to put up with the kids on foreign soil instead of home? And this during school time?

Our theory says that the vast majority of these people were there for a reason: adult fun. That would keep all discreetly entertained both in the resorts' apartments as in villas nearby. No one wanted to go to the beach or to the pool.

And the vast majority of these people didn't want the reason they were there to be known by anyone but by those there. What was to happen in Luz was to stay in Luz.

That was the motto Maddie’s death put in risk. That was exactly what the hoax is about: to keep in Luz what was happening legally in Luz.

Happening legally, we repeat. Nothing illegal only socially reprehensible.

Let’s just say that were 300+ individuals who want to keep this secret as a secret. That they will go out of their way to protect their own name and make sure that what they were there for is not known publicly.

Add to these the staff of the Ocean Club who want to save their jobs and Mark Warner staff who do too. Add the ex-pats who were also involved. Add all those benefiting commercially from this.

Add to this final number the close family and trusted friends of all of those above who when they got to know what really was happening offered a hand to help keep this secret a secret and so save the reputation of their family and close friends.

A secret, we repeat, that has absolutely no illegality to it. Yet it does originate from one, not of their doing: Maddie’s death.

As can be seen, there exists a very significant number of people, “small fish”, who want and go out of their way to keep the swinging a secret.

But outside those who helped conceal the body, no one else of the above committed any illegality. And they know that those who they know they did, the T9, are getting away. They, like us also want justice served for the little girl.

They want to keep the swinging a secret but have the T9 prosecuted. They simply want to punish the illegal while keeping the legal out of sight. Seems simple, straightforward and fair.

Only it isn't.

They are just a large group of people wanting THEIR truth, not THE truth.

THEIR truth is about hiding the legal (the swinging) and exposing the illegal (Maddie’s death) but THE truth implicates the legal (swinging) as it was because of it another illegality (the obstruction of justice) happened.

What was (is) completely legal ventured without return into the territory of illegality the moment justice was obstructed. The moment the body was concealed.

Swinging is legal but the swingers in Luz committed an illegality which was not anything related with their sexual activity but with the faking of an abduction to hide the swinging from the British public.

In our post “The Great Maddie War” we explained how people, disguised as truth-seekers, populated the various internet sites to undermine the quest for THE truth by pushing THEIR truth, the one confined to the T9.

They soon put up this wall that any truth outside THEIR truth wasn’t true. It was ridiculous, it shouldn’t be considered. It wasn't worth discussing and who tried to do that that was either ignored or attacked. It still happens to this date.

Let’s discuss there was a family who were completely comfortable in lending their daughter to the McCanns for a week to pass as Maddie as part of a pre-planned murder. Discuss swinging? Oh please, don't be ridiculous, that’s ludicrous.

That’s why there will always be heated and interesting debates about shadows v bruises on pictures, about if the last photo (evidently photoshopped so most likely not even taken that week) was taken on Sunday or on Thursday, about who is lying about jemmied shutters and whooshing curtains, about whether Gerry signed for another child on the crèche sheets (sheets evidently tampered with and that means the same person could have “signed” for all and any child by faking handwriting or not even making that effort and simply sign with another name), etc. Why? They're pointless but are entertaining and keep the debate alive and well within the T9 border.

But the same happens with relevant issues like the DNA and the dogs. Those can be discussed freely as long as no one tries to go outside the T9 and their inexplicable capability of mustering and force into action agencies like CEOP and the FSS. Did we say the T9? Sorry, it's all they say, due to Clarence’s magical but almighty powerful wand. A wand that made almost the entire UK rush to Luz in 2007 but wasn't able to find him an electable circle last elections.

For example, if one dares to go outside the T9 on DNA one is met with a wall of “indifference”.

We showed how impossible it was for the Gordon boy to leave his DNA high up on a wall where he couldn't possibly reach as alleged by the FSS and show how strange we find how his father who literally spat blood all over the apartment from a shaving cut doesn't leave any trace of his DNA there and no one appears to be interested. Why? Because the Gordons fall outside the T9 circle and so are “untouchable”. Whatever they said is true and that cannot be argued. If it wasn't so one would have to ask why they were lying and one doesn't want to do that.

Otherwise it’s fine to discuss anything else about DNA. Why? Because it keeps things contained within the evil T9 and the evil government and doesn’t poke anyone else “saintly”.

Another example is negligence which seems to be now questioned openly. But only to the point where one T9 was always left in one of the apartments and so keep things to the T9. Say there was no negligence because the children were never left alone and silence is what you get.

By the way, those saying there was no negligence because there was always one of the T9 in one of the apartments are wrong. They are overlooking that at least on Thursday night the T9 were ALL allegedly at Tapas at the beginning of dinner so allegedly all the children were left completely alone in the apartments: NEGLIGENCE.

About there being no negligence, when we were the first speak about it years ago our mental health was seriously questioned and not only by those overtly against us. Again, today we smile on seeing people taking as theirs the ideas we put out when it was very risky to do so.

Partial negligence (a T9 in one of the apartments) is just before that border that is not to be trespassed between the T9 and the “saintly” others, the Tapas staff.

We say there wasn't any negligence because there were no Tapas dinners (they dined elsewhere in Luz or in the surroundings) and the children were being taken care by nannies.

The people wanting THEIR truth and only that to be known started to make “nice little stalls” appear on the internet, popping up like mushrooms.

Some were sites, such as blogs and forums, but most were characters, who we call “White Hats” (“WH”) or pretend White Hats. The JMSE effect: put up a nice front to hide and/or to distract.

In this post we will be calling them TRUTHmongers.

In that “The Great Maddie War” post we explained how successful they were. So successful that all would have been over by now if it wasn’t the disastrous (for them) review ordered by David Cameron in May 2011.

They set out to gain the required status of immaculate innocence and sainthood. They were fighters for what they said was the truth so after a certain show of commitment and determination they were not to be questioned.

By appearing to be outsiders absolutely committed to finding the truth for pure altruistic reasons, they quickly gained what they intended: “sainthood”.

They didn’t want to reach just the status of simple truth-seekers. That would allow others to question their “opinions”. The status they wanted and got, was that of Knights of TRUTH.

Shiny armour and proudly holding the colours of TRUTH, they became the paladins of the cause.

They made Mr. Amaral their god and his word gospel, knowing he was under the same hypnotic trance as all of us with no possibility to know better. They praised Mr Amaral as it served their interest. Now readers can understand why we said very openly we didn’t owe any loyalty to him.

We respect him dearly and regard him as THE hero of this case but we know he was helpless against the might he really faced.

As preachers of this new religion, TRUTHmongers became the blessed ones, so could not be questioned. Their word a dogma.

But as God needs the devil to highlight his goodness so did these “heroes” need evil. That was job tasked to the Black Hat blogs, forums and characters. The more the Black Hats spewed hatred against the Knights of TRUTH the more they sanctified them.

With the Knights of TRUTH on the good side and the Black Knights on the other there was nothing to stop the “tournament” from taking place. And it did. And it was the “The Great Maddie War”.

This, dear reader, was the scenario you found when you decided to find out the truth about what happened to Maddie McCann. The exact same scenario that Mr. Amaral was confronted with in Praia da Luz.

We here faced people pretending to be good and wanting to help as long as that truth and help remained tightly confined to the T9 and Mr Amaral faced the Ocean Club, Mark Warner and ex-pats all wanting to help as long as that truth and help remained tightly confined to the T9.

And where was truth, the real truth in the middle of this? Nowhere to be found. And that was the whole objective in which all of us, some time or another have helped to achieve.

We only woke up sooner than others but when we did, it was too late. Everyone was already under the spell of all the “saints” abounding. To wake people out of this torpor has been a hard and very slow task and we’re still very far away from being successful.

We hope you noticed that we wrote TRUTH and not truth. Or Truth. We didn’t use caps to highlight the word. We used them because it’s an acronym.

TRUTH is an acronym and stands for Twist and Regurgitate Until Tricking History – TRUTH.

Just like Jenny Murat, just like the Ocean Club, TRUTHmongers seek to put on the cloak of sainthood to distract us all from truth.

That sainthood where all lies uttered cannot be questioned in any way for fear of ridicule and “rightful” offended outrage and indignation.

05. Using TRUTH to cover-up THE truth

This is another neat and effective trick and this case is filled with them.

When a newbie stumbles on this case, he just like Mr. Amaral in Praia da Luz, is confronted with people doing the exact same thing Ocean Club did then, all over the various sites: TRUTHmongers who have since set up “nice little stalls” all over the internet.

People the newbie wouldn’t think of not trusting. Note, TRUTHmongers speak the truth, they’re not lying. They only are omitting the parts of the truth that are inconvenient to them.

People the newbie thinks are telling him what is going on. People who the newbie thinks could enlighten him as to what happened. People who the newbie thinks have studied the subject in depth before him. People who the newbie thinks provide their opinions on solid basis (and they do, only this solid ground is the one of their choice).

But the newbie only thinks all this because the same people he comes to trust are the same people who assure he thinks that way.

The newbie is enticed with the TRUTH so that he never finds the truth.

Plus, quickly brainwashed with the TRUTH he will start to reject truth when he sees it. Will fight it. Not knowing he becomes a fighter against himself, against all he came here to fight.

The TRUTH is handed to newbies by TRUTHmongers who, if you have noticed, never debate certain things.

On the left a big round table sitting 9 people.
No similar object can be seen on the Tapas esplanade (right)

Certain things such as:

- the Big Round Table (the only person fighting this visibly keeps posting pics of big round tables – we know they exist like the one above – but what we want to see is THE Big Round Table that was that night on the Tapas esplanade and not seen to this day);

- the total non-negligence (the one involving Ocean Club (Tapas & management) and Mark Warner (nannies));

- the Tapas dinners;

- the Tapas Reservation Sheets:

- Mrs Fenn;

- Derek Flack;

- TS;

- JW;

- the Quiz Nights;

- the watersports;

- the Gordon’s little boy’s DNA on the wall and bedcover (the latter containing semen and saliva);

- the swinging;

- the tampering of the booking sheets;

- the tampering of crèche sheets, etc.

So many things… discussed only on this blog and with so little interest shown elsewhere by those claiming, loudly, in wanting to find the truth.

Why such avoidance in discussing the things we keep exposing?

Note we put swinging topic on its own. We ask not for others to discuss facts within swinging as it’s for that the blog exists. It they do discuss it though, we do welcome it.

What we don't have is the attitude we’ve seen in others whereby if you're not for us, you're against us. Genuine difference of opinions should be and are respected.

No, what we ask is for people to simply acknowledge fact.

And then explain how the facts they have acknowledged fit into their theory.

For example, we would like to know why the Tapas staff lied about there having been the Tapas dinners and Quiz Nights within the paedophile theory, to just name a known one.

To pretend not to see fact when fact is there is not, we think, the best way to substantiate a theory.

If the facts substantiating our opinion about any of these topics are whacky then nothing more easy than to debunk us by showing just how whacky they are.

But never a rebuttal from TRUTHmongers.

Their only defense is silence or personal insult. Criticism on form and number of words. Nothing about content. People who are able to read the PJ Files to its finest details and comprehend them but then claim they bleed from their eyes whenever their sight encounters our words.

Because they won't (can't?) criticise content, they limit their argument to an only “blue is not blue because I don’t think blue would merit this so to discuss blue is a waste of time, besides blue is legal”.

The legal argument is laughable.

Let us ask our readers by a raising of hands how many think being gay is illegal? No one? Correct, it isn’t. It is quite a stupid and offensive question to ask but in a moment the reader will understand why we asked.

Let’s continue, how many think a gay person should be ashamed of being gay? Hmmm, again no one. Another stupid and offensive question.

Ok, last question before the punch line, how many think being gay is not socially accepted? Again, no one because even those who think it is wouldn't dare raise their hands publicly. This, unlike the other 2, is not a stupid or offensive question to ask.

Having answered negatively all 3 questions above please answer the following question: how many openly gay football players are there in the various championships?

Quoting Wikipedia “as of 2012, there are no openly gay footballers in England's top four divisions.”

That is statistically impossible. Not difficult but impossible.

That means there are a significant number of football players hiding their sexuality although it’s legal, nothing to be ashamed of and socially accepted to be gay.

Justin Fashanu is a tragic reminder of how cruel the hypocritical British society can be when it comes to sexuality. Our hommage to him.

Just a rumour is enough. Quoting the same Wikipedia article “Graeme Le Saux, an England international left-back, endured homophobic taunts despite being married with children. The rumours allegedly began because of his “unladdish hobbies” which included antique collecting.”

So next time anyone writes swinging would not cause any social unrest to the swingers because it’s legal and doesn’t even raise an eyebrow please refrain from doing so. Make an effort and remember Justin.

TRUTHmongers do not seek truth. They seek for TRUTH to superimpose truth, settle there and never ever, be moved from there.

TRUTH we remind you, convicts solely the T9 for Maddie’s death, obstruction of justice and body concealment.

TRUTHmongers are fine with this. In fact their objective is to see 9 bodies nailed to the crosses along the Via Apia with the Rothley couple upfront followed by the dastardly Dr Payne.

Truth on the other hand although not only convicts the T9 it also involves many others in the obstruction of justice and body concealment. TRUTHmongers cannot allow that.

Are all those out there who don’t subscribe to Textusa TRUTHmongers?

Obviously not. Fortunately there are many truth-seekers. Good-hearted tenacious people.

Unfortunately many of them have been influenced by TRUTHmongers in such a manner that it makes it hard for them to let go of beliefs created through time.

Also, it’s also very hard to “part ways” from “friends” made while seeking for the truth. To come to terms that one can no longer trust in those one trusted.

Much easier to fool someone than to convince someone that s/he has been fooled, as Mark Twain said.

We understand that.

Unfortunately TRUTHmongers also do and exploit it very effectively. A TRUTHmonger is only a “Knight of TRUTH” with the help and support of the truth-seekers. Ultimately these are who give them their credibility.

A voice needs echoing and without them, s/he is only a seller of nothing, striking the same piano key endlessly because the tune s/he is limited to play demands the tune be of a single note.

We trust the readers’ capability to tell the difference between truth-seekers and TRUTHmongers.

06. TRUTHmongers

But is the JMSE only relevant to the Maddie case because of its pernicious obfuscating effect both to the 2007/2008 PJ investigation and to those interested in the case on the internet?

No. It has some very positive aspects also.

In truth, TRUTHmongers have been and are very important and useful.

Their most important usefulness was to have kept the Maddie issue alive during all these years.

They couldn’t risk truth being known, so had to be here to make sure that TRUTH was fresh each and every morning and that things were kept neatly and tidy around the T9 and around them only.

One must acknowledge all the hard work put in by the TRUTHmongers.

They proceeded to passionately demonise the T9 and mainly and in particular the McCann couple and Payne.

Very quickly TRUTH became a synonym of bringing the McCanns to justice. The couple has become the target and their “execution” would quench the mob’s “thirst for blood” while keeping truth neatly tucked away.

It was this passionate demonisation of the McCanns by the TRUTHmongers that has kept the issue alive all these years.

What TRUTHmongers failed to realise then and are starting to realise now is that they are the living proof of why the cover-up is a cover-up.

They are the living proof that once caught in a lie, it’s very hard to get out of it. That for them to be economical with the truth has become an integral part of their lives that this simply has to be maintained independent of pride, integrity, honesty or any other idealistic values held in the past.

Exactly like with those directly involved in the cover-up. Once caught in the lie the way out is so difficult that it’s better to continue lying.

That’s why they will pretend not to have read this. They will continue with their farce whereby Textusa only exists when convenient, forgetting that when that convenience happens the familiarity shown betrays a knowledge that isn’t supposed to exist.

They will continue their role-playing, endlessly discussing topics that are within their comfort zone, asking the same questions over and over again and revealing the same doubts about the same details no matter how tirelessly they were explained to them before.

They will be throwing STINK BOMBs and picking them up to throw them in again.

They will run in circles over and over again until they provoke the same level of saturation about the topic as there was at the end of 2010.

Unfortunately for them they will first have to wait for the outcome of 2 things: SY and PJ investigations. Only after these outcomes could this issue possibly dwindle away

But we're certain that these 2 outcomes will be thoroughly debated. Again, we advise some who are reading us that the only route possible is the full truth. The other, the archival, will be a mistake.

The real obstacle that TRUTHmongers face to differentiate TRUTH from truth is to be able to explain the fate of the body without there being LOCAL help in those first crucial hours.

And that is the common ground between TRUTHmongers and those, in the UK and Portugal, hypothetically (only when they present their conclusions will we know) who tried to whitewash the whole thing: to find a REASONABLE explanation as to what happened to the body without implicating LOCAL help.

As we have said repeatedly we think that is indeed a mission IMPOSSIBLE.

TRUTHmongers have been useful in keeping the issue alive but that may not be the biggest asset they represent. Their biggest help is in helping truth be revealed. Truth, not TRUTH.

What? Yes, with their pushing of TRUTH they point us in the right direction to truth.

Imagine there are 2 characters, Jane and Mary and each have a set of followers (or people set in protecting them), their respective TRUTHmongers.

To Mary’s TRUTHmongers TRUTH is the truth without all that may harm Mary.

In the same way, Jane’s TRUTH is all of the truth but what affects her, directly or indirectly.

So all Mary’s TRUTHmongers say about anything else but Mary, and that includes Jane, is true.

Same thing about what Jane's TRUTHmongers have to say when Mary comes up in their topics.

One just has to disregard what Mary's TRUTHmongers have to say about Mary and just pay attention what they are telling us about others.

Equally, one has to ignore what Jane's TRUTHmongers say about Jane and pay attention to the rest.

One just has to be a careful listener and a good observer and the truth is out there for one to see.


  1. What a marvellous post Textusa
    Thoroughly illuminating.
    How clear, how simple it all appears. How very difficult it was for Gonçalo right from the very start.
    This has to be one of your best Blogs.
    I do hope those you have been able to compartmentalise them with such accuracy and such aplomb read this!
    As an avid follower of your Blogs I can see much more clearly how entrapment figures so conclusively in this sad case, I myself have been guilty of falling into such traps, thankfully, you have always been there to guide...
    I'm interested to see that you now think 'Archival' would be a mistake. The truth will out, it always does. Of the two end scenarios Truth or Archival, one would hope that the latter would take precedence.
    Let us hope that this is what SY and PJ are working on. However, with the virtual collapse of confidence in the police and yet more revelations in the last couple of days of police cover up to protect an MP in the Dolphin Square Investigation, one wonders if there will ever be an honest resolution.
    The lie has grown and grown and grown and is out of control. Reigning it in and providing a conclusion acceptable to the public is the difficulty as seen by the length of time the investigation is taking.
    All the clutter, as you clearly point out only befuddles and complicates.
    I've only read it the once Textusam so first impressions..
    As I always do I shall be re-reading.

    1. The UK has just witnessed/ing the Establishment cover ups from past decades, child abuses by MP's upper echelons of society?
      I know this is not about Madeleine McCann and her demise, but it has a distinct association to your article. Two different sources were taking part in an under cover ruse to uncover illegal obtaining of funds in their provision of there work place.
      Two former Home SecrtariesJack Straw,Malcom Rifkind have been exonerated of breaking the House of Parliament Rules, yet the person's demonized were the journalists involved in uncovering their deception of the activities caught on Camera procuring themselves to accept monies in exchange for the private work in a public building whilst being paid by the public Tax payer?
      You may be right that the Tapas 9 are being demonized,lambs to slaughter and the main protagonists who have perpetuated along side them escaping from their involvement to "Pervert a Course of Justice" should be rounded up and stand trail along side the original perpetrators to the Crime to conceal their actions.

  2. As well as some crooks and nannies.... Allegedly

  3. Until I found this blog I was not aware of TRUTHmongers, or why indeed they should exist in this case. Surely, all posters on the Maddie-related discussion sites were looking for the truth to emerge? I was enlightened when I stumbled upon Textusa and life became so much more simple. It was as if I had put on a new pair or specs! Suddenly, I could see all the 'TRUTHmonger' posters, and it was obvious how they worked. Gaining trust of all, and then ensuring noone discusses anything outside TAPAS9. If nothing else, it is fascinating to observe and they very quickly stand out once you understand what is going on.

    This post by Textusa is superb, one of her finest, and I hope that a few can start understanding what is going on. Too many posters are now convinced by the TRUTHmongers and thoroughly brainwashed. But there is always hope.

  4. Following quote is absolutely superb, and I would go so far as to say: '...understand the UK and its complex, grossly perverse hypocrisy regarding anything sexual...' - It's also why I have huge respect for Snr Amaral, who became like a lamb to the slaughter.

    "To fully understand this case one has first to understand the UK and its complex, not to say hypocritical relationship with anything sexual. A very serious case of public virtues and private vices that has completely undermined British society.

    Maddie was never about Maddie but about Britain. Mr Amaral and the PJ could never win with such a monster. Hats off to him for standing up to it that must be said and acknowledged."

  5. If there were 400 guests at the resort with a significant proportion being swingers, how unlikely is it that none have ever come forward as the resort being used for swinging? Not all swingers think what they do is socially unacceptable and given the importance of the case, I would have thought someone may have come forward.

    Also within the scene, had someone swung (?) with one of the T9 or observed them swinging, it would surely have been a story told to others. Yet as far as I know no claims of the sort have been made. If a group went on a swinging holiday, a reasonable assumption could be made that they had done it before yet no evidence of this exists as far as I am aware. Employees no longer with Mark Warner would be offered money by media to come forward with allegations about the nature of the resort yet none have done so.

    Cover ups have to have a tight circle to keep them contained and for me this theory has far too big a circle to account for no leaks despite constant focus on the case for so many years.

    The cover up clearly involves more than just the T9 but I don't buy it being as big as suggested.

    1. AGREED. Just imagine how much a story like, ' I swung along with ?? from the T9' would fetch. Irresistible to anyone short of a bob or two who was actually there and happened to be so liberated that they just didn't care what 'people thought' about them. No 'swinging' isn't the shared interest.

    2. Anonymous 18 Sep 2015, 16:48:00, Anonymous 22 Sep 2015, 16:45:00,

      Could you please provide me ONE story where swingers were outed (please not articles where organisers/hosts show their faces) where a parallel of "not minding they have exposed us" can be established?

  6. Wow textusa the gloves are off keep up the good work

  7. Brilliant post Textusa :)

    I agree with Anonymous 18 Sep 2015, 10:05:00, this is one of your best.

    I also agree with his/her comment "The truth will out, it always does."

    I believe the continued cover up of what happened to Maddie McCann to be unsustainable. This will never go away, too many people know the truth, that Maddie died in the apartment and a huge cover up took place, and that knowledge won't shrink in the coming years, it will grow and spread. Even more people will get to know what really happened as time goes on.

    They will also get to know more about the extent of that truth, that not just the parents and T7 were involved in the cover up but other holidaymakers plus Ocean Club and Mark Warner employees were involved also.

    I don't see archival as a viable option, not in this day and age with all the information there is about the case online and particularly the PJ files, which contain the most damning evidence of all.

    Nuala x

  8. Very true Nuala.
    The Truth will always out.
    The availability of the internet, social media etc are far too powerful tools to ignore or suppress.
    As Textusa so clearly points out, the lie has grown and grown and is now unsustainable.
    Textusa makes everything so clear, so transparent.
    Let us hope that the PJ and SY are working on bringing this to a swift conclusion .
    The 'Lie' cannot be hidden for much longer.


    Re: Textusa Saturday 9/5 11:am
    Tony Bennett Today at 12:17 am

    @HelenMeg wrote:Superb post by Textusa today.


    I have never made a detailed comment on one of Maria Santos/Textusa’s posts before. On this occasion, HelenMeg was impressed enough with us to tell us all to read it, hailing it as ‘superb’.

    So I decided to have a read and see for myself what all the hype was about. This post is a summary of, and commentary on, what I found - and I hope it’ll be of use to those who lack the patience or the will to read what turned out to be 16 pages of A4 when I cut-and-pasted it into Word. I mean to be constructive.

    The very first thing I want to say is that, to give credit where credit is due, many of Textusa’s posts clearly demonstrate that she has done very thorough original research on a variety of topics related to Madeleine’s disappearance. I’ve read a number of her posts, and have found some of them useful for reference and for clarifying my own thinking on the case. That’s not to say, by any means, that I always find the conclusions she reaches to be justified by the facts she’s presented.

    The second thing to say is that IIRC I’ve only once engaged with Textusa’s blog articles, and that was on the subject of the alleged ‘Smithman’ sighting. I suggested that the sighting might be fabricated. I was sent packing with a proverbial flea in my ear.

    Turning to Textusa’s article, it is headed ‘TRUTH’. The article urges readers to be guided by the facts. However, of all the Textusa articles I have ever read, this one has fewer facts in it than any other. Hardly any.

    The Jenny Murat Stall Effect

    But I do have significant points of agreement with her.

    The ‘peg’ for her article is that she refers to the ‘Jenny Murat Stall Effect’, which she then refers to just as the ‘JMSE’. She portrays Jenny Murat as a liar who creates of false persona of being an upright person seeking the truth.

    The entire burden of the rest article is to distinguish what she calls ‘Truth-seekers’ (like herself) with what she seems to think is a vast army of ‘Truth-MONGERS’. Jenny Murat, she says, by setting out her paste table in Praia da Luz, created the ‘Jenny Murat Stall Effect’. By this, she means that Jenny Murat created the perception of being an honest truth-seeker when she was manifestly not. She then tars a whole swathe of people, without saying who they are, ass ‘Truth-MONGERS’. These are people who, she says, just like Jenny Murat, hold themselves out as seekers after truth about what happened to Madeleine, whilst actually (deliberately, she implies), lying about the case.

    She begins with this:

    QUOTE: “This JMSE effect…is in our opinion simply the most pernicious single thing that has afflicted the Maddie Affair. The Murats were very busy helping, the son with translating, the mother with her stall. But we now know the Murats have been economical with the truth as to what we think regards their involvement in the case. So what did Jenny Murat intend to achieve when she set up her stall? We can make an educated guess that it was to distract and to create a character, a persona, who we shall call as Jenny “JMSE” Murat”.

    Now, I agree with Textusa, about both Robert Murat and his mother. His 17 lies to police about his movements from 1st to 4th May, combined with his unprofessional conduct during his translation work, should be enough to raise a couple of big red flags about him to start with. I think his sudden dash to Praia da Luz early on 1 May is another major item of interest, but for reasons I’ll come on to later, I don’t think Textusa can take on board that this too might be cause for concern.


  10. cont.

    The Mark Warner Cover-Up

    She then deals with what she says was an organised, immediate and effective cover-up operation organised by the top brass in Mark Warner and the Ocean Club.

    She writes, for example, of those involved in a ‘circle of trust’, who were committed to the cover-up, adding: “We don’t know if, or how many of, the staff of the resort, both of Ocean Club and Mark Warner, were ‘in on it’ as time progressed. What we know is that the word spread and it spread fast…word could have been spread quickly to instruct staff on what to say when questioned by [the] authorities…”

    She refers to four people who “…if they had said when they were questioned by the PJ: “No, that group of guests didn’t dine here during the week. They were only here last night”, this whole story would have stopped there and there. If that had happened, the whole abduction hoax had no legs to stand on”. She proceeds to develop that point. These people, she says, were ‘Truth-MONGERS’.

    They: “…showed am [apparent] willingness to [help] the PJ to find the truth, while lying to them about what had really happened…offering to help get to the truth but firmly blocking it…the moment that first Ocean Club employee lied to the authorities the snowball that we know today began to roll”.

    It must be conceded that those who claim that Madeleine was not abducted do have to rely on alleging that some of the Ocean Club lied. And in considering this whole case, we must never forget that in his 2009 article for the Evening Standard, Mark Hollingsworth alleged that the McCann Team investigation supremo, Brian Kennedy , and his men, had intimidated some men into silence.

    But there is a major problem about Textusa’s analysis of an organised Mark Warner/Ocean Club cover-up, and that is that it conflicts with this statement which is on her home page:

    “This blog believes that concerning the MADDIE McCANN case the following happened: Maddie McCann died in the early evening of May 3rd, 2007, in Apartment 5A. We believe the death to have been accidental”.

    Frankly, it is hard to see how such an effective Mark Warner/Ocean Club cover-up (which is what she claims) could have been organised during barely two or three hours of the evening of 3rd May.


    Then Textusa comes on to her familiar claim that what was really being hidden that week – and why there as a cover-up - was a large swinging party: “In our opinion PJ knew about the swinging…the Brits took no chances. Once the authorities arrived and the lie started it had to be maintained…For that to happen those involved in lying must have been stakeholders in the lie”.

    She adds that the booking sheets show 361 people in the resort that week, but adds: “We know the sheets were tampered with”, so thinks that the actual number was 400 or more, with some key names whooshed: “others had their names removed due to the position they held in the hierarchy of the food chain”.

    She continues: “Swinging is legal but the swingers in Luz committed an illegality which was not anything related with their sexual activity but with the faking of an abduction to hide the swinging from the British public”.

    As I think others have said, there are some possible indications that swinging was taking place that week, but after eight years, nothing amounting to actual evidence of it has surfaced.


  11. cont.

    Who are the ‘Truth-MONGERS’?

    Then she goes on to “explain how people, disguised as truth-seekers, populated the various internet sites to undermine the quest for THE truth by pushing THEIR truth, the one confined to the Tapas 9”.

    Then follows criticism of those who, like PeterMac, and his two experts, maintain that the ‘Last Photo’ is not photoshopped, and could have been taken on Sunday 29 April and not on Thursday 3 May. She writes:

    “That’s why there will always be heated and interesting debates about shadows v bruises on pictures, about if the Last Photo (evidently photoshopped so most likely not even taken that week) was taken on Sunday or on Thursday…”

    So on this point, Textusa ignores expert evidence – and that, I suggest, is because she cannot shift form her firm belief that Madeleine died in the early evening of 3 May.

    It’s also of interest that HelenMeg describes Textusa’s post as ‘superb’ when she said the same about PeterMac’s brilliant analysis of the ‘Last Photo’ being a genuine photo probably taken earlier in the week.

    @ HelenMeg: Both of them can’t be right

    Debates, says Textusa, about ‘who is lying’, ‘jemmied shutters’, ‘whooshing curtains’, ‘whether Gerry signed for another child on the crèche sheets’ are all, she declares, “pointless but entertaining”.

    Then she has a few paragraphs explaining how she was ‘the first’ to say there was no negligence because there was always one of the Tapas 9 in one of the apartments [each night]. She says her mental health was seriously questioned by those on both sides of the McCann debate. Maybe. I don’t know.

    But then she makes what seems to be an attack on the many Madeleine websites, forums and blogs: “The TRUTH is handed to newbies by Truth-MONGERS who…never debate certain things. So many things…discussed only on this blog and with so little interest shown elsewhere by those claiming, loudly, in wanting to find the truth. Why such avoidance in discussing the things we keep exposing?” But her article doesn’t give us a single clue about who these bad ‘Truth-MONGERS’ are!

    And she concludes with this: “What we don't have is the attitude we’ve seen in others whereby if you're not for us, you're against us. Genuine difference of opinions should be and are respected”. Well, that is good to hear from Textusa.

    And her final word: “What we ask is for people to simply acknowledge fact, then explain how the facts they have acknowledged fit into their theory. We trust the readers’ capability to tell the difference between Truth-seekers and Truth-MONGERS. One just has to be a careful listener and a good observer and the truth is out there for one to see”.

    I agree with that Textusa. Have another look at PeterMac’s detailed forensic analysis of the Last Photo on page 1 of this thread:

  12. Our response to Tony Bennett:

    Jill Havern, as you brought over, Anthony Bennett has posted quite an extensive post on a forum thread about us and current post on my blog.

    Here is my response. Due to its length it had to be divided in 2.

    Part 1

    If we read it correctly, Tony sums up what is said in the post but complains about the blog’s attitude about 2 issues:

    - Smith sighting;

    - Last photo.

    Before we go back to these 2 points, we would like first to address the fact that Tony says: “Frankly, it is hard to see how such an effective Mark Warner/Ocean Club cover-up (which is what she claims) could have been organised during barely two or three hours of the evening of 3rd May.”

    What one is capable or not to organise depends mainly on one thing: time available. If one has only 2 or 3 hours then one just organises what one CAN organise within that time frame.

    If hubby tells me today that boss is coming tomorrow, I prepare things one way with the time I have but if he calls and says I just invited boss to dinner, we’ll be there in a couple of hours, I prepare it completely different.

    Do I not serve the dinner? Yes, I do, only the more time hubby gives me the better I can prepare it. But if I have only 2 hours, then I will serve what I can prepare in that time.

    In our opinion, the T9 had very little time to prepare “dinner for the boss” reason for such clumsiness in doing it.

    Are we lead to believe that if they had time to think things through they would present 2 timelines to the PJ? That the window would be with the shutters down? That the bed they claim Maddie was taken from wouldn’t be unmade and ruffled up? That there wouldn’t be evidence of a break-in when there was none?

    What did they spend their time planning on? Nothing or just on planning to plan? Because someone bundled up all that is associated to a timely planning which should have been checked and corrected if done with time: the dinner arrangements, the Tapas reservation sheets, the booking sheets and the crèche sheets.

    Back to Tony’s complaints.

    We believe fully in what the Smiths have said on file up to the moment Martin recognises Gerry coming off the plane and stop believing in him after that because we believe he was convinced externally to alter his faith about what happened. To precis, we believe in him before he was got to.

    We have no reason to doubt Peter and A Smth’s words that are on file.

    We simply cannot see the reason why would Smith engage his family into something that doesn’t exempt Murat from anything besides being there at Rua Escola Primária at that moment. Honestly, we cannot see any benefit coming to Murat from Smith inventing this encounter.


  13. cont.

    Murat is not exempted in any way from participating in the “abduction” just because he isn’t the man seen carrying a child.

    That man, Smithman can be someone out of the Maddie context, a man just walking with his daughter back home, or could even be someone other than Murat carrying Maddie after picking her up from Murats’ (and this would justify the 45 minute between Tannerman and Smithman).

    Murat not being Smithman only provides an alibi for that place at that time and what is the good of that?

    If, as Tony believes, Martin Smith came to haul Murat out of a pickle by exempting him from being in Rua da Escola Primária, then wouldn’t his focus be on making sure the PJ grasped without hesitation the man he saw wasn’t Murat?

    As he was supposedly inventing an event, why not invent one having him bump into the man allowing him to get a good look at the man’s face to be able to state adamantly it wasn’t Murat?

    If the intent of the invention was that, then wouldn’t THAT be the most obvious thing to do?

    What would be the consequences of him doing that? We see only him having to produce an e-fit (which SY says he did) and as he was inventing he could describe George Clooney for all he liked. He knew the man didn’t exist, so even if eventually the e-fit matched someone he could always say, no, that isn’t the man, I saw the man quite well. No one would know better.

    On the other hand, Martin Smith saying Smithman wasn’t Murat is logical and understandable. Murat was then was the ONLY arguido.

    Martin was reporting a possible suspect. Nothing more logical and natural for PJ to ask, was it Murat? Nothing more natural and logical to respond to that question with a no, I’ve seen Murat around Luz sometimes and if it was him I would have recognised his face instantly, the man I saw was a different man. Logical and nothing suspicious about it.

    Part 2

    About the last photo, we would ask for the experts who did the analysis to be identified. If they defend photo to be genuine then will be taking the McCann side so no fear of being Carter-Rucked whatsoever.

    The photo analysis as far as we could see wasn’t done in any depth. The shadows may be right for the timing but shadows can also be photoshopped.

    Besides other factors detailed by others (some we agree others we don’t) the reflection of the sunglasses is very clear that there is no reasonable explanation how horizontal lines are projected vertically.

    For the photo to be real, we’re talking about Euromillion odds.

    We don’t think the photo was taken on Thursday. Nor on Sunday. We think the Gerry bit was taken after events and the Maddie bit, well, when she was alive. But it’s only an opinion and is worth what is worth.

    For us, that photo has a purpose. And here we must refer back to our belief in the swinging background of the events.

    The purpose that week was NOT to have family time so there weren’t any photos of a family time holiday. The McCanns and to those “helping” them faced a total lack the documentation of total lack of a time the family spent together that week.

    That’s what we think the photo is about, to create a family time when and where there had been none.

    Is it plausible for a parent to take a single photo of a child? Even before the digital era, one took a GROUP of photos.

    There would be more than one tennis photo and there would be more than one pool photo. Where are they?

    Photoshopping, even badly done (was it on purpose to mistify?) takes time…

    As far as we know Tony admits the tennis balls photo may have been tampered with so of one photo can be then so can ALL the others.

    The playground pic is so obviously fake it hurts the eyes.


  14. cont.

    So, let us affirm that we think the photo known as the Last Photo is not genuine and it doesn’t prove in any way that Maddie was alive or not on the 3rd. It pretends to prove there was family time on that particular day and it fails.

    We evidently disagree with Tony but was we have said we all have the right to disagree.

    In disagreement but we have provided our opinion and justified it, about the 2 points raised by Tony.

    We think that it would be fair for us to hear his opinion about the points we raised in the post (our turn to make an 18 point list). In front of each question we have placed our opinion so that those less familiar with our blog can know what it is:

    1. Did the Big Round Table exist? We don’t think it did.

    2. Was there total non-negligence (the one involving Ocean Club (Tapas & management) and Mark Warner (nannies)) or only there was no negligence because of “one Tapas in apartment”? Yes we think there was no negligence whatsoever.

    3. Did the Tapas dinners take place? We don’t think they did.

    4. Are the Tapas Reservation Sheets genuine? We don’t think they are.

    6. Did Mrs Fenn hear Maddie cry for 75 minutes and why she only reported it over 3 months later? We think there was no crying episode.

    7. Is Derek Flack lying about Pimpleman? We think he was.

    8. Is TS lying about Pimpleman? We think she was.

    9. Is JW lying about Pimpleman? We think she was.

    10. Were there Quiz Nights? We don’t think there were.

    11. Were there watersports? We don’t think there were.

    12. Is it the Gordon’s little boy’s DNA on the wall and bedcover (the latter containing semen and saliva)? No, we don’t think the DNA is from him.

    13. Why did PJ use the word “swing” to search Murat’s and Malinka’s computers? Because PJ knew swinging was going on.

    14. Were the booking sheets tampered with? We think they were.

    15. Were the crèche sheets tampered with? We think they were.

    16. Is Stephen Carpenter lying about almost all he says? We think he was.

    17. Is Raj Balu lying about the travel cot? We think he was.

    18. Is Neil Berry lying about the travel cot? We think he was.

    The reasons we think the way we do about all of the above we have detailed in our posts, to the point of detail where some have accused us of lack of precis.

  15. Just wanted to say in regard to what I've read this evening on CMoMM, if PM is unable to name his two "experts", maybe you could ask him to qualify regarding what specific questions were asked of these individuals. For instance, were the questions light and time specific? Whichever way one cuts the mustard though, Amelie still has no right arm. The images are an insult to normal intelligence, and that's the best I can say about them.

    1. That poor little Amelie has no apparent nostrils, either. Perhaps the challenge could be to find two Experts willing to put their names out there for the CMoMM Last Photo Authenticisters?

    2. For every "expert" there is an equal and opposite expert, it doesn't wash with me and never will. Quality they are not!

  16. We are all told that 100,000 people worked on the 'Manhattan Project' prior to the use of the H bomb, nobody knew of this including the President of the USA (albeit the latter for only a week). Whilst on a very different note and scale, this would serve to prove that where there's a will there's a way....

  17. Dear Textusa, just one question if I may, if the Mccanns were there to enjoy themselves for a holiday and swinging, then why prior to arrival at PDL on the airport bus did Gerry say "Im not effing here to enjoy myself". I would be pleased to hear your thoughts on trying to reconcile this.

    1. I know that Textusa has a different view than me on this but for what its worth i think GMC displays all the signs of someone who as a youngest and no doubt very bright child was idolised and taught to believe the world revolved around him with parents and siblings through their behaviour teaching him that his opinions and his needs far outweighted that of other members of the family group. He has carried that learned behaviour into his own family. I have no doubt that he was the joker of the group, larking about and being the centre of attention while KMC probably struggled with 3 young chikdren through airports and onto the plane. At some stage prior to the bus outbrust she has tried to reign his larking about in to get him to concentrate on helping her and the kids. A very typical reaction to that is what you see on that bus, him huffing because god forbid that she should suggest that he take some responsibility. He resorts back to the behaviour he displayed as a wee boy and the " i,m not here to enjoy myself" is to let everybody know how kate is ruining his fun. I know i have been a kate on the airport bus and other places

    2. Anonymous 20 Sep 2015, 18:54:00,

      That outburst is for us very telling and it was something which has helped us “unveil” what really was happening in Luz.

      The phrase has too many words for it to be a simple momentary reaction. It has the f word indeed and that word has “hidden” that it is essentially an explanation: they weren’t there to have fun.

      It also shows something else: stress, anxiety.

      Fast forwarding to the night of the events and the days that followed what was the most relevant thing that was shown? The other end of the “favour-stick”.

      One may wish many a thing BUT only those one is able to have are the ones that will come true. In other words, only those there is someone out there willing to give it to us. If that “person” is not out there, we can wish upon a star until our eyes turn blue that nothing will be coming our way.

      When one is caught one wishes one get out of the pickle. But one only gets out of that pickle if someone out there is capable of taking us out of it and also wanting to do that.

      The “quality” of the wishes granted to those in Luz clearly shows that the group was influential, Highly influential. Able to generate the materialisation of favours from the UK government itself.

      Back to the bus. This group of upper-middle class doctors were on the way to be part of a such a highly influential group. No, they weren’t there to have fun. They had the pressure to meet the requirements needed to be invited again.

      They were seeking to please much more that to have pleasure themselves.

    3. Textusa thanks for the reply. I trust your analytical skills in this area it certainly makes a lot of sense. In this instances I am guilty of doing what I advise others not to i.e. putting myself in their position and thinking because I wouldn't do it then wouldn't do it. Kind Regards

  18. Can you provide a link to the stuff about the Gordons son? I don't think I've seen it.

    1. Anonymous 20 Sep 2015, 19:41:00,

      Here it is:

  19. Gerry reacts like that on the short, patronising, alleged bus video for your eyes only, its all part of the marketing mix. Everything remaining on YouTube is there for a reason, including THE Sun logo video.

  20. Why was one of Rupert's journos speaking to Robert Murat over the phone about a contract?

    What blooming contract?


    It seems Maddie was alive, at least on May 2nd, according to Mrs Boyd. Unless death early in the week theorists say Mrs Boyd was inventing this scenario.
    If she was, what was Mrs Boyd's motive?
    She wasn't on any of the guest or creche lists, so how did she have access to the play area?
    Was this family one of the "missing persons" referred to?"

    1. You're falling into the trap of believing something is true just because the information found its way into the PJ files. Question everything, Leicester was there to stifle the case according to the chief coordinator. Think about it, including the reason why Harrison was flown out at the behest of Leicester.

    2. Didn't one of Gerry's early blogs appeal for a very nice lady who was by the pool to contact Kate? I wonder if that was Mrs Boyd.

    3. Funny thing is, the lady is not in the booking sheets but that means little . But, aside from that, the weather was very bad on Wednesday so I doubt Mrs McCann would be in a sun lounge . The child spent her days at the creche, so when would this family moment have taken place?

      Bronte, Is there a water slide in the kids pool?


    4. Isabel,

      We think journalist made a mistake and it should just be a slide.

      Maddie's clothing wasn't swimwear.

      Wasn't there a small slide on the playhouse as shown in the photoshopped playground photo, the one where everyone is having fun, Gerry playing with children and the photographer with shadows?

  22. A remark for Insane: You are wrong about point 12 Not Textusa. In fact, there was no test done to determine the origin of body fluid. Mr Lowe made a deduction based on the DNA being the DNA of a child that, according to Lowe, could not have deposited semen due to his age.


    1. No, you are wrong.
      The stain was tested in situ initially using a phosphatase test, which gave a weakly positive result. That is NOT an absolute indication of semen; saliva can provoke a similar response.

      The DNA analysis yielded a full DNA profile which was a 100% match to the young child in question. A child that age does not produce semen, therefore the stain was judged, in the opinion of the expert, not to be semen. A further test, a Phadebas test, which specifically tests for the enzyme amylase present in saliva, gave a positive result. This is confirmed in the PJ files, which you have either not read or did not understand.

      I will take your full apology and retraction as confirmed

    2. I'm Isabel, my response was too long for a single post and had to be divided, so here it is:

      From Not Textusa to me, published in his blog:

      “ A letter has flooded in from some half-witted twat by the name of Isabel, who posted the following on Textusa
      I really am sick and tired of explaining this to the thicky sisters. All this information is IN THE FILES, with the exception of the explanation of what the Phadebas test actually tests for, which comes from my personal knowledge

      I have left the following reply, which Textusa probably won't publish, hence my publishing it here too “

      Dear “Not Textusa” , I so dislike it when you get too angry. All your dark humorous style goes down the drain then. Shame. Tut.

      Now , your original answer to point 12 was as follows:

      “No, it is from him, as confirmed by DNA analysis by the FSS. The bed cover did not contain semen; you are well aware of this. “

      All I wanted you to have done was to actually write what you now wrote here as a reply . Chasing the adventurous itinerary of sample 5, which you had not done properly. If anything, my comment made you write a more accurate account of the sample's analysis.

      Don’t take it for granted that only you are thorough enough to read and understand forensic reports.

      You did forget to include, to be thorough, that when analysed in March 2008, the Portuguese Institute of Legal Medicine did not match the saliva sample to any profile. A further request was sent in 2008 to the FSS still referring to the sample as semen, although, yes, a test in December had showed saliva in the sample. . The request also asked for a DNA match to 3 other people, whose DNA was in possession of Portuguese entities as shown by the correspondence below. It was John Lowe and the FSS that extracted the Gordon child DNA from said sample and consider it to be saliva due to child’s age.

      So drop the insults , they really do no favours to your style, and consider I have contributed to your writing of a far more , although not totally, accurate and complete answer.
      Results from the Portuguese Institute of Legal Medicine

      OFFICIAL LETTER N.' 004080, dated 12/12/2007, that solicited "examinations as appropriate, with the view to determine the nature of the mark (found on the counterpane [quilt/bedspread] of one of the beds in apartment 5A of the tourist resort OCEAN CLUB in Praia da Luz) and if it permits the identification of the profile indicated by letter (L)".

      In the 1st fase, were received 258 vestigios and 12 reference samples - oral swabs [swatches] from 11 individuals. The vestigios included 257 hairs [generic] and one speck detected in a cloth fragment collected from the counterpane of the bed next to the window of the bedroom of the children in apartament 5A (envelope 5), as mentioned in the previous report.

      Phadebas Forensic test, for detection of saliva on the fragment of cloth corresponding to vestigio n'. 5 collected from the counterpane of the bed next to the window of the children's bedroom.

      Phadebas Forensic test, for detection of saliva on the fragment of cloth corresponding to vestigio n'. 5 collected from the counterpane of the bed next to the window of the children's bedroom: Positive.

      3- Study of the nuclear DNA

      Autosomic STRs results were obtained from the following vestigios: root of one of the hairs collected from the bedroom floor of the Burgau apartment (Vg3) and in the lower zone of te fibre from the car boot. Table 1 includes, also, the profile of the spot from the counterpane, already sent previously.

      25 reference samples.
      - 447 vestigios, comprising:
      >> 444 hairs, of which 432 were human;
      >> 1 mark on a counterpane;
      >> 2 objects from a car boot.

      L 4 1 Mark counterpane bed (saliva)(env5)


    3. cont.


      First: In total in the two phases of the case there were 25 reference samples and 447 vestiges studied: 1 spot on the counterpane; 2 objects from the car boot and 444 hairs. The macro- and microscopic analyses of the 444 hairs revealed that 432 were humano and 12 non-human, no result being obtained for 98 hairs and only partial results for l9 hairs. With respect to the plastic object from the car boot no results were obtained.

      Second: The search for saliva in the mark on the counterpane from one of the beds in apartament 5A of tourist resort Ocean Club was positive.

      OFFICIAL LETTER N.' 004080, dated 12/12/2007, that solicited "examinations as appropriate, with the view to determine the nature of the mark (found on the counterpane [quilt/bedspread] of one of the beds in apartment 5A of the tourist resort OCEAN CLUB in Praia da Luz) and if it permits the identification of the profile indicated by letter (L)".

      There were no matches between the reference sample genetic profiles and the following analysed samples:

      - Mark on the cloth fragment collected from apartament Ocean Club (counterpane of the bed next to the window of the children's bedroom - env. 5).

      From Lowe Report

      This is a request from Paulo Rebelo to John Lowe/FSS : We further request the DNA profile comparison concerning the English citizens that stayed in the apartment throughout 2007, where the above-referred sperm stain was found.

      With the DNA profile

      D3S1358 15-18 CSFIPO 10-11
      HUMTHOI 9.3 Penta D 9
      D21511 29-32.2 VWA 18
      D18551 17-18 D8S1179 12-13
      Penta E 7-8 TPOX 11
      D5S818 12-13 Fibra 20-24
      D13S317 12-14 D2SI338 18-25
      D75820 10-12 D19S433 13-15
      D16S539 11 Amelogemine XY

      Obtained by the INML, IP from a bedspread of a bed located next to the window of the children - s bedroom in Apartment 5A, block A, in the Ocean Club, tourist resort, Praia da Luz, Lagos, with the results obtained by this laboratory.

      Lowe’s Answer on May 22nd 2008:

      The voluntary samples were also compared with 'crime stain 1', a DNA profile obtained by Portuguese scientists using their DNA profile system. The profile was recovered from suspected semen on a blanket in the apartment 5.

      From the available records, I conclude that 281 voluntary samples were eliminated as contributors of DNA to the list of search profiles above, since its profile does not match the profile sought; consequently, the DNA can not have originated from them.

      I conclude further that, the DNA profiles obtained from the 'crime stain 1' and 286A/2007/CRL9A & B coincide with Charlie Gordon (bar code 51156964). I believe that Charlie Gordon was born on 29 January 2005, and if this is the case, in my opinion, the DNA profile obtained in 'crime stain 1' is not the result of semen found on the blanket.



    5. Censored comment received from Insane:

      "Not Textusa has left a new comment on your post "TRUTH":

      Are you attempting to make a point, Isabel? Because if you are, you are failing miserably.
      Why don't you come back when you have read the files properly, dear.
      You and Textusa seem utterly incapable of realising that without the entirety of the reports on this sample, it is like switching a football match on with 15 minutes to go and assuming that the scoreline at that instant is the final score.
      You claimed no test was done to determine the origin of the body fluid. That is a complete lie. As I stated, the Phadebas test gave a positive result for saliva.
      There is no mystery about this, other than the one (censored) has tried to engineer

      Posted by Not Textusa to Textusa at 22 Sep 2015, 14:47:00"

    6. "Dear", tut. Behave. What I stated within the context of your comment in your blog was that the FSS did not perform a test to determine the origin of body fluids. Am I incorrect? No, I thought not.


    7. Bless, " not Textusa ". Added insults , albeit in a fantastic font type. Excellent . You do amuse me .

      PS: I have upgraded your forensic's reply from a D to a B-.


  23. Swinging may be legal but getting frisky in the presence of a child is a criminal offence and if you put mother and friend in the crime scene according your theory the couple could be charged for causing alarm or distress!

    Although swinging is a safe middle class leisure for some I wonder how high would be the degree of tolerance if a case with such proportions achieved the english parliament!

    Even if British government recognise the rights and respect the sexuality of swingers to avoid discrimination against them it would be always a hot subject having a child dead in the middle of international and recreational sex meeting!!!

    Media/press would love to explore a thing like this. In spite of writing about abduction and possible suspects the press would take this last 8 years exposing all the people involved. You see, the thrill of sexual adventure is so powerful that press would sell the last paper each day!

    Swinging marriages probably will face huge risks and people are not all modern and tolerant with this alternative lifestyle. Swinging is like two-edged sword! Swingers who seek to exercise their freedom of choice must face obstruction from the sate, so they may be persecuted by laws and specially persecuted by the press that does not recognise sexual acts as private.

    Yes cover up a swinging event with a letal episode in the middle was a important thing to do.

    The last but not the least the most pertinent mystery: we do not know exactly the circumstances of tittle girl met her own death. Were they enough sordid to cover up the whole THING?

  24. WOW!

    Anônimo Anônimo
    1 hour ago
    De um grupo anónimo de funcionários de empresas e do meio legal que estão estupefactos com o que aconteceu. Portugal e a Grã-Bretanha são velhos aliados, mas os McCann e os tablóides britânicos tentaram separar-nos. Todos vemos perfeitamente aquilo que estão a tentar fazer, congelando os bens do Dr Amaral para o impedir de se defender, enquanto usam os milhões que lhes foram doados pelo público para o processar. Isto não é justiça. Isto está errado. Os McCann perderam 5 das suas 7 pretensões, mas a imprensa britânica não o reportou, nem tão-pouco reportou as palavras duras utilizadas pela juíza em relação às suas supostas 'provas'. Têm de pagar 60% das custas, mas a imprensa britânica não o reportou. Esta pequena doação destina-se a assegurar que este venenoso acto de ódio não seja bem sucedido. Acreditamos que um dia a verdade será contada, embora seja improvável que sejam os pais a fazê-lo.


    Translation, with thanks to Lisa Edington of FB

    An anonymous group of employees of companies and legal means that are stunned by what happened. Portugal and Britain are old allies, but the McCanns and the British tabloids tried to separate us . All see perfectly what we are trying to do , freezing the assets of Dr Amaral to prevent him from defending himself, while using the millions they have been donated by the public to the process . This is not justice. This is wrong . The McCanns have lost 5 of their 7 pretensions, but the British press not reported , nor even reported the harsh words used by the judge in relation to his alleged ' evidence ' . They have to pay 60 % of costs , but the British press not reported . This small donation is intended to ensure that this venomous hatred act is not successful. We believe that one day the truth will be told, although it is unlikely to be parents to do so.


    What other words can one say but... WOW?

    1. This fantastic £4,000 donation is followed by another 2:

      Bravo Bravo
      50 mins ago
      Always a delight to see a donation made to this wonderful fund for Dr Amaral set up by Leanne Baulch. -----This morning to see the latest donations by a group of employees from various companies, and the message this donation carried is magnificent.---- Bravo to one and all who contributed to the donation.

      Karen Laverick
      33 mins ago
      Just logged in to pay my monthly payday troll fee & thought my heart would burst at the amazingly generous donations from a group of anonymous workers... Let's hope we can get this fund up to £50,000 by the trial.


      Posted by portugalpress on September 22, 2015
      Appeal to raise money for Maddie cop’s legal costs gets huge cash boost

      An anonymous group of Portuguese “business and legal workers” have ploughed over €5,500 (£4000) into the online appeal, set up by a young single mother to raise money for beleaguered ex-Maddie cop Gonçalo Amaral. Amaral’s appeal against the €600,000 in damages awarded against him in the civil case taken out by the parents of missing Madeleine is due to be decided by Lisbon’s Appellate Court “any day now”.

      The cash boost has brought the Legal Defence for Gonçalo Amaral to over €65,000 (£47,010).

      Donated in the Portuguese language, the text claims to be from “an anonymous group of business and legal workers who are appalled by what has happened”.

      It continues: “Portugal and Britain are old allies, but the McCanns and the British gutter press have tried to drive a wedge between us.

      “We can all see what they are trying to do, freezing Dr Amaral’s assets to prevent him from defending himself, whilst using the donated millions to sue him.

      “That is not justice. It is not right.

      “The McCanns lost five out of the seven issues, but the British press has not reported that, nor the strong terms used by the judge against their so called ‘evidence’.

      “They have to pay 60% of the costs, but the British press has not reported that” either, the text continues, stressing that “this small donation is to ensure that this act of hate and venom does not succeed”.

      The donation - arriving in the legal fund early on Tuesday morning - has been widely shared on social media where a veritable avalanche of support for Amaral has accompanied him for the past eight years. But so far it has been ignored by the British mainstream media.

      As to the former PJ detective’s appeal against the ruling that effectively orders him to pay the McCann’s over €600,000 in damages, that is advancing now through the Appellate Court in Lisbon.

      As a friend of the former detective’s explained, “it is not a public process. There is no court date.

      “At some point, the judges reach a verdict and then they communicate that verdict to all parties. There is however no deadline. It may take weeks or months until we hear anything”.

    3. Thank you Natasha Don for your article and continued support for Mr Goncalo Amaral in his appeal case.
      We can only hope that political influences have no relevance and they go for the Truth, which in some way based on probabilities?

  25. Yet another futile video has appeared on CMoMM to confound the gullible in terms of the ludicrous last photo. What total jokers!!

    1. Anonymous 23 Sep 2015, 00:07:00,

      It's not one but 2 very useful videos. They prove how impossible it is to replicate the reflection seen on Gerry's sunglasses on the photo known as the last photo.

      We recommend that people follow the interesting debate taking place on the "Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann" FB page:


    2. I'm bringing over what I consider the posts that sum up conclusions reached.

      From Nuala:

      Anthony Bennett I'm not interested in what your experts had to say. We don't know who they are and we don't know what questions they were asked. Besides which no-one should blindly take the word of an expert and I'm surprised that you do. Anyone who has seen expert witnesses giving testimony in court cases knows two experts on the same subject can have totally opposing views.

      So expecting to shut down this debate with the "experts" argument isn't going to work. We're intelligent people with minds of our own and we use them.

      The reflection in GM's sunglasses is impossible. The photo was photoshopped.

      Isabel Oliveira has asked Darren Ware a perfectly valid question about the photographer's reflection not being in GM's sunglasses. So far he's ignored her question, so we await his response.

      It's my belief that the reason the reflection in GM's sunglasses had to be photoshopped is because it DID show the reflection of the person taking the photograph, and that person wasn't Kate McCann.

      It's also my belief that the base photo (at the pool) was taken around 17th/18th May 2007 and the image of Maddie was added in afterwards. There are photos here of GM wearing the same clothes as in the Last Photo and AM with her pink hat:


    3. Thanks for pointing us to these debates -as many as possible should read these, especially if you are inclined to believe any posts beginning with words to the effect of..'an expert has verified that .................'

    4. Two videos, my oh my, someone's running scared. Shameful Black Hats!

  26. cont

    From me (Maria Santos):

    Nuala Seaton, agree totally with you.

    Isabel Oliveira's question has just unlocked for me the mystery. Gerry is looking straight at the camera, the glasses are perpendicular to the viewer and at about the same height. The photographer would have to be reflected. Not should but had to! The glasses are perpendicular to the camera.

    And it could be easily seen it was not Kate.

    My opinion is this.

    Photo of Maddie taken during week, could be Sunday, could be any other day, under the context of holiday. It could even have been taken by the childcare people or by the McCanns.

    There was a need to to create family time. The few pics taken of Maddie dictate what can be done. This probably was the only photo she took around pool.

    After Maddie died, and it could be on the date you say (the heat had passed, media were domesticated to reporting when McCanns gave press conference, clothes and sunlight seem to fit and explains why it took so long for picture to surface), Gerry and Amelie pose for pic.

    In "studio" the photographer reflection problem is detected. Probably when the whole picture set up. It needs to be solved. They simply took the glasses from other image taken that afternoon and was pasted over the original.

    The picture from where they copied glasses from would be one where Gerry would have them vertically on his shirt, and the reflection being of the opposite border of pool from where he's seating.

    The choice of picture from where to choose from was most likely conditioned with the photographer's reflection. Most pictures would have it. This one didn't because the glasses were on his chest and the angle makes what is reflected to be beneath the horizon line of camera, thus the other side of the border.

    All this, obviously, MY opinion. My thanks to you and Isabel. It's always the bits and pieces of unconditioned debate that allows one to withdraw the best conclusions.


    1. This post has 2 replies to date, from Darren Ware (author of videos) and myself:

      Darren Ware:
      Stick a very small mirror (especially one that's slightly convex), onto someone's head (or clip it on their spectacles)...get them to sit on the floor...then walk 5meters from them...look at each other and take a photo. The chances will be slim of cap...

      Maria Santos:
      Darren Ware, "Stick a very small mirror". No can do. Only sunglasses to be used as reflecting surface. Any other is cheating results.

      But you already know that.

  27. cont.

    From me (Maria Santos):
    Anthony Bennett, I will not get personal with you. Not because it’s you, because I don’t get personal with anyone in this case. I discuss only fact. When I disagree with something someone has said, it’s not personal, it’s debating fact.

    I am the voice for Madeleine and so are you if the reasons driving you are the same as mine. I am the voice, you are the voice and so is everyone who at heart wants to see the truth surface about Maddie.

    Am I the owner of the truth? No, I’m not.

    Are you? No, you aren’t.

    In the end I can be proven to be, or it can be you or someone else. Only then will we know who was right but only for the sake of knowing. This is not a competition. This is a collective effort to force out a truth that has been blocked by those who think they can block it from us.

    To either of us say or act as if we own the truth, is arrogance. I have many shortfalls but don’t think arrogance is one of them.

    I have already pointed out to you that the experts you keep repeating have deemed the last photo as “photoshop-free” are completely useless for the discussion we have had here, unless they have expertise in other areas than the ones you’ve mentioned.

    I am not putting them down or minimising their opinions. As you’ll see I would very much like to hear their opinion on something. But this is NOT about photoshopping this is about the physics of imagery. This is not their area of expertise.

    I’ll exemplify. This is what self-proclaimed expert Darren Ware Ware replied to Isabel Oliveira concerning the fact that the photographer’s reflection doesn’t appear on the lenses:

    “Isabel... in answer to your question: It all depends on a complex variety of factors. Key ones are distance between the camera and the subject, and the shape (i.e. convexity) of whatever is reflecting back to you. So, for example, in a portrait taken close up you'll see a very wide angled reflection (such as a whole room) of the area behind the photographer...but in the case of the Lat Photo the photographer was possibly 5 meters away from the subject and so the reflected image would be a very narrow field of view. Why can't you see the photographer in his lenses? Simply because, since at that distance the field of view would be narrow, there's a greater chance of not seeing the photographer than doing so.”

    Darren speaks only of physics. Not a single word about pixels.

    Angles, distances, shapes (i.e. convexity), angles and fields. This is what is being discussed.

    Now note how Darren does not refer to this “complex variety of factors” [his words] when simplifying things his way so say that a reflection of 1 or 2ft of the edge of the pool would fill up a whole lens located at “possibly 5 meters away” when the reflections of objects on lenses are a fraction of their real size. Those 1 or 2 feet would be millimetres.

    On the image, taken from his video, where he claims he has proven his point there’s the proof of the opposite: reflected on the lens of the mannequin’s sunglasses is the contour of the edge of the bed.

    Yes, the bed is smaller than the pool, however the edge of the bed is much nearer to the mannequin’s sunglasses than the edge of the pool would be to Gerry’s.

    Darren’s little experiment is very useful because it shows what Gerry’s lenses were supposed to show but aren’t.

    When asked to replicate on the lenses what is in the image, Darren shys away from the challenge because he says he needs sunlight. He doesn’t. We’re not asking for any more quality of image than the one he showed with the lighting he had which he used to prove his point. If the lighting was good enough then, then it would be good enough to rise up to the challenge.

    He had (has) all the tools he needs to replicate: the mannequin with sunglasses, a round bed and a camera.


  28. cont.

    I agree with Nuala Seaton, this is not a game of obfuscating and visual tricks.

    To your photoshopping experts I would put only one question: are the lenses of the sunglasses photoshopped?

    However, I would only be satisfied with only one answer from them: “yes”. And I can tell you right now that I would expect for their answer to be “no”.

    Before you criticise me I am not being disrespectful to them or stubbornly accepting only one answer as I’ll explain next.

    The answer “no” would be the most likely but for me would be inconclusive.

    Why? Because I think the lenses shown belong to the frame and that the frame belongs to the face. So I’m almost certain that the analysis by experts of the border between lenses/frame and the border between frame/head would both result in a conclusive “no, it’s not photoshopped”. And they would be correct.

    I have some limited experience in image formatting, am not an expert and my “work” is exposed in the images I publish on the blog. It’s limited but it is experience and is enough to allow me to know that what I would be asking your experts to detect (now we’re talking pixels and not physics) is very hard or even impossible to detect: the superimposition of solid colour over the exact same solid colour.

    What I think was done, was they cut the image by the middle of the frame of glasses from one picture and superimpose it over the image of the same pair of glasses of another picture. As the pair of glasses was the same in both the pictures so the tonalities of the frame in the image from which was taken would be the same as the one of the frame that was superimposed.

    The “scar” would be in the middle of the frame and not on the borders lenses/frame nor on the border frame/head. Those borders would be originals. The first from the image from where it was cut and the latter from the image in which it was pasted.

    Thus me saying it would be very hard or impossible to detect.

    In this matter I would be very pleased and attentive at what your experts would have to say about it. It would be their area of expertise and they would now be correctly directed was to what they would be looking for, with precision: only the frame of the glasses.

    If they said yes, they would prove my point but if they said no they wouldn’t disprove it for the reasons said.

  29. Proper investigations start with believing nothing, these so-called investigators begin by believing something is true and proving by vague and oft spurious means that it is not, or is, or whatever their slanted subjective analysis and experts tell them.

    They already know they've been lied to, but fall into the trap of believing huge swathes of the narrative because they've been told or read it in the files. Gerry was right, they have nothing, legally and technically - NOTHING. They tie themselves up in twisted knots of frustration because their heads are filled with mountains of clutter. That's why they continue to fail and by extension cause untold misery.

  30. Unpublished Anonymous at 24 Sep 2015, 03:20:00,

    We have not published your comment because it's of a personal nature, and we respect fully the privacy of others.

    Hope you understand.

    1. I have reasons for my incredulity, but I'm totally cool. Cheers!

    2. Anonymous 25 Sep 2015, 00:10:00,

      We understand you do and we're certain others have too when watching those videos.

      But we will not let go of the respect that other people's privacy deserve from us.

      Thank you for understanding.


Comments are moderated.

Comments are welcomed, but its reserved the right to delete comments deemed as spam, transparent attempts to get traffic without providing any useful commentary, and any contributions which are offensive or inappropriate for civilized discourse.